Posts Tagged: "patent office"

Although the mining and metallurgical sectors are still seen as environmentally unfriendly industries, innovation in these sectors has been increasing since the beginning of the century, including in the development of green technologies. Four years ago, the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) released a study measuring innovation in the mining industry with patents, “Mining patent data: Measuring innovation in the mining industry with patents”, showing a sharp increase in the number of correlated patent applications since 2005, which is a clear sign of the growth in investments in R&D and innovation made by these industries.

This week in Washington IP news, the Senate and House are back in session and holding a variety of hearings on departments’ 2024 budget requests, including for the Department of Commerce and the National Science Foundation (NSF). Elsewhere, the Council for Innovation Promotion (C4IP) is holding a webinar on proper use of Section 1498(a) of the U.S. Code; and the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) is hosting regional events in Central Virginia and Silicon Valley to promote resources available to prospective innovators and entrepreneurs.

U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) Director Kathi Vidal held a virtual conversation with the intellectual property (IP) press on Wednesday to coincide with a one-year anniversary Director’s blog post published today. “If last year was about listening…this is really the year where we’re trying to bring that to impact,” said Vidal. Vidal said the work she did in her first year in office was about providing clarity and sometimes learning from “unintended consequences,” but this year is going to be about implementation based on the feedback they’ve been provided via the various requests for comments, listening sessions and other initiatives the Office has undertaken. “We now have more knowledge to shape real policy,” Vidal said.

By now, unless you live in a total IP blackout zone, you’ve heard about the Unitary Patent and Unified Patent Court (UPC). Your friends in Europe, particularly, have been insistent on informing you, whether you want to know or not, with daily (if not hourly) email blasts, since January of this year. But most of what they tell you misses the forest for the trees. Here’s why. Let’s begin at the beginning. Aside from your client telling you to, why do you file a patent application? The only answer is: it is a hedge as to the future. The reason for that is that you and they have no way of knowing at the time of filing whether this will be the “next big thing” or just another “thing”. You might say or even believe that filing an application is about “protection” or potential “revenue”. But it isn’t.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) today affirmed in a precedential decision the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s (PTAB’s) finding that Moderna Therapeutics proved certain claims of Arbutus Biopharma Corporation’s mRNA delivery patent invalid as anticipated. U.S. Patent No. 9,404,127 is titled “Non-liposomal Systems for Nucleic Acid Delivery” and is directed to “an invention that provides stable nucleic acid-lipid particles (‘SNALP’) that have a non-lamellar structure and ‘comprise a nucleic acid . . . methods of making the SNALP, and methods of delivering and/or administering the SNALP.’” SNALP has a three-dimensional structure that is either a lamellar morphology or non-lamellar (pictured).

On April 10, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) issued a trio of Rule 36 judgments that summarily affirmed a series of final written decisions by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB). Rule 36 summary affirmances at the Federal Circuit have been a growing problem in the realm of U.S. patent law over the better part of the last decade. Without the benefit of an appellate court’s reasoned analysis of arguments raised on appeal, IP attorneys and professionals are left grasping for answers from PTAB rulings without knowing for certain whether the PTAB’s construction of obviousness doctrine is proper.

This week in Washington IP news, Congress is still on a state work period, but events continue in the Washington area as the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) holds a STEM educational event for K-12 students and their families. Elsewhere, the Brookings Institution will hear from U.S. Treasury Undersecretary Jay Shambaugh about the state of the global economy.

On Wednesday, April 4, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) denied VLSI’s motion to terminate Intel’s involvement in an inter partes review (IPR) of VLSI’s U.S. Patent No. 7,725,759. In addition to Intel, OpenSky is also a petitioner in the IPR, which pertains to claims 1, 14, 17, 18, 21, 22, and 24 of the ‘759 patent. VLSI argued that a previous March 2021 district court ruling that found Intel had not proven invalidity of claims 14, 17, 18, and 24 of the patent precluded the tech firm from continuing to pursue this IPR. However, Intel successfully made the case that claim preclusion does not apply thanks to the America Invents Act (AIA). Additionally, it argued that the IPR and district court proceedings do not involve the same accused product and have different standards of proof.

On March 30, U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) Director Kathi Vidal issued a decision on sua sponte Director review that vacated a decision of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), which had previously denied institution of inter partes review (IPR) proceedings brought by semiconductor company Wolfspeed. In her latest in a series of sua sponte decisions, Director Vidal ruled that the PTAB erred in determining that prior art asserted by Wolfspeed was essentially the same as other prior art asserted against the same Purdue University patent claims in previous IPR proceedings that were also denied institution by the PTAB.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) on Friday issued a precedential decision holding that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) correctly found Roku, Inc. had failed to prove the challenged claims of Universal Electronics, Inc.’s patent obvious. Judge Stoll authored the majority opinion and Judge Newman dissented, citing both procedural and substantive problems with the majority’s analysis. The decision relates to Universal Inc.’s U.S. Patent No. 9,716,853, which generally is directed to universal remote controls. Specifically, the patent describes “a universal control engine (UCE) that facilitates communication between a controlling device (i.e., a remote) and intended target appliances.”

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on Thursday upheld two Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) decisions finding VirnetX’s patent claims unpatentable in inter partes review (IPR) challenges brought by Apple, Inc. and Mangrove Partners. The dispute relates to VirnetX’s U.S. Patent Nos. 6,502,135 and 7,490,151, which are directed to a “secure mechanism for communicating over the internet.” Mangrove Partners challenged several claims of the ‘135 patent at the PTAB, alleging they were anticipated by a 1996 article authored by Kiuchi and Kaihara

A bipartisan group of congress members sent a letter to U.S. Patent and Trademark Office Director Kathi Vidal late last week urging her to implement some of the proposals outlined in her October 2022 Request for Comments on Robust and Reliable Patents in order to address problems around drug pricing. The letter was sent by Representatives Jodey Arrington (R-TX), Lloyd Doggett (D-TX), Michael Burgess (R-TX), Ann McLane Kuster (D-NH), and Darrell Issa (R-CA). They specifically expressed concerns about the practice of “patent thicketing” and gave the example of two separate patents granted for a rheumatoid arthritis biological drug by the same company, where the difference in the claims was seemingly minor. The letter cites to a video titled “The Case for Patent Reform,” featuring Senior Vice President and Head of Legal & Intellectual Property Biosimilars at Fresenius Kabi, for this reference.

U.S. companies and inventors still filed more patent applications with the European Patent Office (EPO) than any other country, according to its Patent Index 2022, which was released today. The index showed that U.S. patent applications numbered 48,088, a 2.9% increase from 2021. However, China’s filings jumped by 15.1% over 2021, keeping it in fourth place out of the top five countries of origin for applications and narrowing the gap between it and Japan, the number three filer.

Last week, cyber threat intelligence firm Centripetal Networks filed a petition  with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit seeking mandamus relief from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s (PTAB) “extraordinary departure from basic elements of due process” during inter partes review (IPR) proceedings challenging Centripetal’s patent claims. If left unremedied, Centripetal argues to the Federal Circuit that its own treatment at the hands of the PTAB “sen[ds] a message to the entire patent bar: Any attempt to hold APJs to standards comparable to those of Article III judges [will] be met with sanctions.”

The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) publishes the Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (MPEP) (currently electronically, but spanning thousands of pages in printed form) to provide examiners and patent practitioners with guidance on the patent statute, USPTO regulations, and patent prosecution practices and procedures. USPTO regulations are promulgated pursuant to the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), which requires a process that includes publication of proposed rules and a public comment period and are binding on the public. The 2011 Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (AIA) strengthened the USPTO’s already-considerable policymaking powers. In a recent law review article addressing the USPTO’s post-AIA policymaking powers, William Neer recognized the USPTO’s AIA-empowered potential to engage in retroactive substantive rulemaking and determined that the USPTO promulgated more rules post-AIA than it did pre-AIA. This article discusses substantive MPEP procedural changes implemented retroactively by the USPTO.